ABSTRACT
In the 1990s, Nike was criticized by activists for its harsh labor practices. Stories surfaced of child labor in Pakistan and workers working in very inhumane conditions in many of its plants. Even the founder acknowledged in 1998 that Nike was synonymous with slave wages, forced overtime, and abuse. Nike then started implementing many measures to become more socially responsible. But did things change? The answer emerged with a broadcast aired on an Australian channel. Posing as a fashion buyer, an Australian reporter got access to a Nike plant operating in Malaysia. The reporter was shocked to find workers living in extremely bad conditions. They had to work for very long hours with very little pay. Worst of all, many of them were Bangladeshi and came to Malaysia for employment. However, as soon as they arrived, their passports were confiscated and they had to work long hours to pay for recruiting fees. The broadcast showed
The Preview Business Ethics Insight above shows that it is extremely critical for com - panies to manage their ethics worldwide. Consider the case of Nike and the workers in the plants in Malaysia. While Nike was not directly employing these workers, the media blamed Nike for the horrible working conditions. Is Nike to blame if their subcontractors decide to have bad working conditions for workers? How can they counteract weak government regulations in most of the emerging countries (Vietnam, China, Indonesia, and Thailand) where most of their shoes are made? The constant attention paid to Nike and the bad publicity with such reports suggest that multi - nationals have to strive very hard to be ethical. Nike admits that it is their responsibility to monitor and ensure that their suppliers have humane working conditions.
